Congress is currently debating the Antisemitism Awareness Act. This proposed legislation aims to provide a clear definition of antisemitism for use in enforcing existing civil rights laws. Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial tool for combating rising antisemitism by filling a gap in current legal definitions. Opponents, however, contend that the bill could stifle free speech and limit criticism of Israel. Join the Federalist Society for a timely discussion on the legal and constitutional implications of this legislation, exploring the complexities of defining hate speech while upholding the principles of free expression.
Featuring:

William Creeley, Legal Director, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Middle East and International Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
(Moderator) Aharon Friedman, Special Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

The recent dismissal of the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights by President Trump raises fundamental questions about the scope of the President’s removal authority and the constitutional status of these offices. Do these officials exercise executive power such that they must be removable at will? Or has Congress validly restricted removal in pursuit of independence?
This panel will examine the legal and historical foundations of both positions, tracing the development of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, their placement within the legislative branch, and the President’s authority to remove them—if any. The discussion will examine whether these offices lie within the President’s removal authority or whether Congress has validly constrained that power.
Our panel will consider the constitutional text, structural implications, and historical practice governing the removal of these unique officers.
Featuring:

Prof. Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
[Moderator] Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has traditionally regulated interstate and international communications and, as part of that, maintained a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—were challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the FCC, rejecting the argument that the universal-service contribution scheme violates the nondelegation doctrine.
Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and what this means for the nondelegation doctrine going forward.
Featuring:

Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLP
Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

On January 20th, 2025, President Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by executive order. DOGE and its head, Elon Musk, hope to reduce the size and inefficiencies of the administrative state and return the federal bureaucracy to being accountable to the President and, ultimately, the people. While the scope and extent of this mission are still to be determined, one of DOGE’s early endeavors is to dramatically reduce the number of civil service employees determined to be unnecessary or wasteful. While many are vocal in their support of these actions, they are not without pushback, including several legal challenges.
What is DOGE, and are its structure and actions legal? Where does the power to remove civil servants rest? Are there limits to that power? What impacts will their removals have on the Executive Branch?
Featuring:

Ms. Kristine I. Simmons, Founder and Principal, Rose Communication & Coaching LLC
Prof. David A. Super, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Economics, Georgetown University Law Center
Mr. Manuel Valle, Senior Managing Associate, Sidley Austin LLP
Mr. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
(Moderator) Hon. Ryan T. Holte, Judge, United States Court of Federal Claims; Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law

Among the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders to that end. As some have noted, however, such deregulation can take significant time due to factors like the requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”
This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.
Featuring:

John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for Impact
Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute
(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

Since taking office on January 20, 2025, President Trump has emphasized deregulation. Deregulatory efforts have focused both on undoing Biden-era policies in areas of interest (environmental regulation, SOGI issues, immigration, etc.) and on a broader effort to limit the scope of administrative power more broadly. In light of these strong changes, this panel will discuss the history of deregulation efforts in the Executive Branch, how those compare to the deregulatory efforts of the Trump Administration, and what these changes may mean both practically and more institutionally for the future of the Administrative State.
Featuring:

Prof. Bridget C.E. Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Distinguished Professor, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University
Mr. William C. Hughes, Senior Counsel, Consensys Software
Prof. Richard J. Pierce Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
(Moderator) Mr. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School

Does the President control independent agencies? This panel will examine the Trump administration’s efforts to reassert presidential control over independent federal agencies, considering the constitutional, legal, and practical implications of such actions. Central to the discussion will be Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the independence of certain regulatory bodies by limiting the President’s removal power, and the perspectives raised by legal cases such as Hampton Dellinger’s, which questioned the administration’s authority over the removal of agency officials. Proponents argue that increased presidential oversight enhances accountability, ensuring agencies align with elected leadership’s policies, while critics warn that such changes could erode agency independence and introduce political influence into regulatory decisions. The discussion will consider whether these changes promote efficient governance or threaten the integrity of federal oversight.
Featuring:

Prof. Jed Shugerman, Professor, Boston University School of Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School

Presidents have used executive orders to direct the executive branch since the founding, but over the years the modern Presidency has drastically expanded its use of executive orders. Executive Orders have always been an important means of moving the Executive Branch into alignment with the President’s interpretation of the law consistent with his duty of faithful execution and a primary way President’s exercise their executive discretion under law. Yet all power is subject to expansion and abuse. In January 2014, for example, then-President Obama announced his “pen and phone” strategy: “I’ve got a pen to take executive actions where Congress won’t, and I’ve got a telephone to rally folks around the country on this mission.”
Subsequent administrations have similarly relied on presidential authority to govern by way of Executive Orders, leading to significant litigation challenging the breadth of such authority. This panel will examine the use of executive orders and the “pen and phone” strategy throughout our nation’s history, especially from a separation of powers perspective. This broad power is not expressly identified in either the Constitution or statute, but it has long been accepted as inherent to presidential power over the federal government, federal agencies, foreign affairs, and our military. This panel will discuss the impact of executive orders, what precedent they set for future administrations in the robust exercise of executive authority, and how the “unitary executive” theory plays into that analysis.
This webinar will be the first of four webinars previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on the topic of Theories of Presidential Power.
Featuring:

John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government; Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Moderator: Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

After the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and U.S. v. Lopez (1995) held two federal statutes were unconstitutional as those statutes were beyond the power of Congress to enact, some claimed it was the dawn of a new federalism revolution. However, such challenges to federal power did not seem to continue.
Now, a new case McNutt v. DOJ, once again directly challenges whether a federal statute is beyond Congress’s power to enact. This time, the challenge is to the federal ban on at-home distilling. This case raises substantial issues concerning the scope of Congress’s power and how much decision-making authority the Constitution left for states to decide.
This FedSoc Forum will provide an update on what has occurred so far and discuss the important issues raised by this case.
Featuring:

Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Michael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
Eric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
Moderator: Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC

In 2025, antitrust and consumer protection remain hot topics in the legal world as a new Congress and Administration begin. Join this FedSoc Forum as we discuss possible antitrust and Federal Trade Commission reforms in the 119th Congress.
Featuring:

Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, House Committee on the Judiciary
Thomas DeMatteo, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives
Lynda Garcia, Chief Counsel to Senator Cory A. Booker, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at United States Senate
Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

For many years, legal scholars have declared that the nondelegation doctrine is dead. Professor Cass Sunstein once quipped that the nondelegation doctrine had only “one good year” and more than 200 “bad ones.” But that has changed recently. In 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that the Federal Communications Commision’s (FCC) Universal Service Fund is unconstitutional on nondelegation grounds. It was one of the only times since 1935 that a court has done so, and it appears that 2024 (and beyond) may turn out to be good years for the nondelegation doctrine.
Contrary to the FCC’s argument, the en banc Fifth Circuit concluded that the Universal Service Fund operates as a tax, which only Congress has the power and authority to require. Regardless of the public policy that it seeks to advance, Congress cannot delegate this power to the FCC or to any other executive branch agency. The nondelegation doctrine has not been entirely dead for the last hundred years; courts often construe statutes so as not to invalidate them under the nondelegation doctrine. The en banc Fifth Circuit rejected that approach.
Does the canon in the common law of agency, mentioned by the Fifth Circuit, known as delegata potestas non potest delegari (Latin for “delegated power may not be delegated”), have any impact on the original meaning of the nondelegation doctrine? Assuming the nondelegation doctrine is valid, what are the standards that courts should look to when determining whether a statute is sufficiently intelligible? Do words like “in the public interest” or instructions for the agency to “provide reasonable regulations” provide sufficient guidance to agencies? What kind of principles can be applied that are also judicially enforceable?
If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit, what will be the impact on other statutes? To discuss these important questions and others, Jeff Beelaert, a partner at Stein Mitchell, and Trent McCotter, a partner at Boyden Gray, will join us.
Featuring:

Jeffrey Beelaert, Partner, Stein Mitchell
Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

The development of standing jurisprudence has been inextricably intertwined with the growth of the administrative state over the past 60 years and the bevy of new statutory rights, privileges, obligations, constraints, and interbranch dynamics that came with it. Over the past three terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued numerous opinions that are rich with standing doctrine. Three new voices in administrative law--all recent law school graduates--will address recent developments in standing jurisprudence, focusing on State standing, associational standing, and post-TransUnion common law analogues.
Featuring:

Eric Bush, Law Clerk to the Hon. Justin Walker, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP
Aaron Watt, Law Clerk to the Hon. Brian Miller, Eastern District of Arkansas
[Moderator] Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions. In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.

On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.

Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.

Featuring:

• Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
• John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
• (Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School

Congress’s impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic’s founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to remove Supreme Court justices, presidents, and now cabinet secretaries is more controversial, and since the 1990s, in arguably partisan or overtly political ways. The impeachment inquiry into President Biden and the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Department Secretary Mayorkas (which recently failed a snap Senate vote) may be seen as tit-for-tat for the two impeachment trials of President Trump. Is that a false equivalence? Regardless of who threw the first partisan stone, are recent uses of the Impeachment power a good development or arguable abuses? What does it portend for the future? Our distinguished panel of scholars will discuss the power itself, recent impeachment proceedings, and the potential implications for the future.

Featuring:

• Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of Law
• Prof. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
• (Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

In his recent book Why Congress, Dr. Phillip Wallach covers the past, present, and future of the Legislative branch to help measure its modern level of dysfunction and offer suggestions for future restoration. The book traces how Congress was designed to operate, how it has met the challenges of decades past, and the trends that have contributed to increased polarization and decreased power. Having established how we got where we are, Dr. Wallach articulates three potential paths forward for Congress: continued dysfunction, increased power for the Executive branch, or a revival of the forms that ensured it will function as designed in the past.

Join the author and our panel of guest experts for an enlightening discussion!

Featuring:

• Prof. Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University - Moritz College of Law
• Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
• Dr. Philip A. Wallach, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
• (Moderator) Mr. Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

On March 28, 2023, Representatives Harriet Hageman and Chip Roy joined the Georgetown University Chapter of the Federalist Society for a discussion moderated by David Hoppe. Topics ranged from the representatives' careers prior to joining Congress to the proper role of Congress in the federal government, and the event concluded with audience Q&A.

Featuring:
- Hon. Harriet Hageman, U.S. Representative, Wyoming
- Hon. Chip Roy, U.S. Representative, 21st District of Texas
- Moderator: David Hoppe, President, Hoppe Strategies

On March 23, 2023, the Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and the Federalist Society's Arizona State University Student Chapter and Article I Initiative co-hosted a debate about whether the legislative power can be delegated.

The debate featured Professor James Stoner and Professor Michael Rappaport, and was moderated by Arizona State Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick.

Featuring:
- Prof. Michael Rappaport, Hugh & Hazel Darling Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law
- Prof. James Stoner, Hermann Moyse, Jr., Professor and Director, Eric Voegelin Institute, Department of Political Science, Louisiana State University
- [Moderator] Hon. Clint Bolick, Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
- [Introduction] Prof. Stephanie Lindquist, Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science and Director, Center for Constitutional Design, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University

The University of Richmond chapter of the Federalist Society hosted this panel discussion on "The Major Questions Doctrine, Chevron Deference & the Future of the Regulatory State" on Tuesday, March 21, 2023.

Featuring:
- Prof. Joel B. Eisen, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law
- Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
- Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute

In November 2022, the District of Columbia City Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA) that significantly reformed the D.C. Criminal Code to "modernize and overhaul" the District's criminal laws including a reduction in penalties for many violent offenses.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser initially vetoed the bill citing concerns about some of the changes, but the Council overrode her veto in early 2023. Because D.C. government is not autonomous from the federal government, the legislation requires Congressional approval.

The U.S. House voted to nullify the bill, and the Senate is slated to vote on whether to block the bill this week. Should the Senate vote to block the D.C. bill, it could be the first time in almost 3 decades that Congress has nullified a D.C. law.

If the Senate votes to nullify the law, the bill will go to President Biden to sign or to veto. While many had anticipated he would veto the resolution, President Biden indicated in a March 2 tweet that he would sign the resolution should it pass.

On March 6, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson wrote a letter to the Senate attempting to withdraw the legislation. Such a withdrawal has not been attempted before. The Senate is still slated to take the issue to a vote later this week.

As the Senate vote approached, we hosted a webinar featuring an opening address from U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty, followed by a discussion of the bill and what may come next.

Opening Address Featuring:

Hon. Bill Hagerty, United States Senator, Tennessee

Discussion Featuring:

Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Heritage Foundation

On October 17, 2022, the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project and Capitol Hill Chapter hosted part III in a lecture series on the administrative state. This discussion covered the major questions doctrine and how Congress may respond to the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA.

Arguably unenforced for some time, recent federal court cases have once again raised the specter of nondelegation doctrine. In so doing, cases such as West Virginia v. EPA at the Supreme Court, and the 5th Circuit's decision in Jarkesy v. SEC, arguably throws into question the status quo under which administrative agencies have heretofore operated.

This final event in the co-sponsored luncheon series on the administrative state investigated the impact such cases may have on Congress in terms of lawmaking delegation, and forecasted what Congress can expect if SCOTUS continues to enforce the nondelegation doctrine while moving away from former deference doctrines.

Featuring:
- Sarah Binder, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution
- Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, House of Representatives
- Moderator: Hon. Trevor McFadden, Judge, United States District Court, District of Columbia